Geary: "Why would a news correspondent begin a report: "So. Mr Trump lumps all
non-whites and non-males into the dangerous servant class. And plans to deport
them all to Alaska. So. Mr. Trump stubbed his toe.""
"So" is also a German particle. So, one has to be careful there. As I mentioned
the first time Geary brought the topic to discussion, "so" is a technical term
in philosophical logic. Specifically, "so" is the vernacular counterpart, as
you know who (Grice, yes) would have it, of something like the "------" or,
better, if you must, "∴". The polemic in Oxford started when Sir Peter Strawson
published his "Introduction to Logical Theory" acknowledging "Mr. Grice" "for
never ceasing to teach me about logic, even since he was my tutor at St.
John's". When a festschrift for Grice was compiled, under the title PGRICE (his
first name was Paul, "Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions,
Categories, Ends"), Strawson supplied a copy of an essay that had been doing
the rounds in Oxford, "If and -->". In that essay, Strawson takes "if" (and its
logical counterpart) to be correlated with "so" but in an interesting way: "if"
is used for UNASSERTED bits, "so" for asserted bits.
Grice's examples are
i. Jill: Jack, you are so brave!
Jack: Am I?
Jill? Yes. But then you are an Englishman.
Jack: So?
Jill: All Englishmen are brave.
Later, Jill retells the episode to her mother:
ii. Jack is an Englishman; so, he is brave.
Grice and Strawson agree that when uttering (ii) one is ASSERTING
iii. Jack is brave.
In the case of a conditional with "if"
iv. If Jack is an Englishman, Jack is brave.
one is not, because, well, it's all conditional.
Now, perhaps Geary should write down, next time he comes across this, this use
of "so".
Geary: "Why would a news correspondent begin a report [as in (v)]?"
v. So.
Mister Trump lumps all non-whites and non-males into the dangerous servant
class.
And plans to deport them all to Alaska.
So.
Mister Trump stubbed his toe."
David Jones, who invented English phonetics, would be careful here. J. C. Wells
and other phoneticians after Jones invented "suprasegmental" phonology; so, one
has to be careful if we need a period here, as Geary's transcription has it.
Unfortunately, Chomsky is writing on other issues now (Helm ordered an essay by
Chomsky) rather than concentrating on sentence structure. The mediaeval
logicians called "so" a syncategorema.
If there are NOT two sentences here, the possibility can be:
v. So, Mister Trump lumps all non-whites and non-males into the dangerous
servant class.
Grice is careful here (in (ii)): there is the use of the semi-colon, ";". It's
ungrammatical otherwise:
ii. Jack is an Englishman; so, he is brave.
This may be equivalent to
vi. Jack is an Englishman. So, he is brave.
In any case, it is ungrammatical NOT to use a period after the 'so'. As a
sentence in itself, I don't think "So" counts. It may count in a conversational
move, but usually Americans repeat it (flouting Grice, "Don't be more
informative than is required"):
vii. Jill: How are you feeling, Jack?
Jack: So so.
Jill: You shouldn't. You are an Englishman; so you are brave.
Suprasegmental phonology is a trick. Geary feels that he needs to represent the
pause he hears (or interprets) in the utterer, as making "So" a full sentence.
And the continuation as a new one ("Mr. Trump lumps, etc."). What about "..."
This is used by Americans to represent hesitation. We would have:
viii. So... Mister Trump is lumping.
M. A. K. Halliday speaks of endophora, exophora and anaphora. "So" be anaphoric
("backwards reference"). In which case, we should pay attention to what went
before. E.g
ix. Weather magnificent, thank you Bill. So. Mister Trump is lumping...
I will now explicate the implicature:
x. Weather magnificent, thank you, Bill. So [back to the topic that should
concern us: the campaign]: Mister Trump is lumping...
In which case, "so" may be a marker of a change of topic. One example Grice
gives is:
xi. A: Mrs. Brown is a windbag.
B: So: the weather has been delightful for the season so far, hasn't it.
The implicature is that A committed a gaffe. "So" markes an abrupt change of
topic. Another of his examples:
xii. A: So: how much are they paying you at ACME?
B: So: I think I'll order the chocolate mousse.
Again, "so" indicates an abrupt change of topic indicating, "None of your
business, darling."
So. One has to be careful. Or So. Not. Of course.
Cheers,
Speranza
----
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Jul 17, 2016 2:38 pm
Subject: [lit-ideas] So.
So why is it that of late radio and TV correspondents, program hosts, opinion
praters and so on and so forth start their sentences, paragraphs,
pronouncements and political posturings with the word "So"? I've broached this
subject here before, so you've all had time to look it up. What is the meaning
of "so" when used suchly and what part of speech is it and why does my
Webster's Unabridged cite 23 different usages of "so" So, you don't know, do
you? So, don't try to pull bull on me. I wasn't born no yesterday, nor even
last week. I know what's so, so keep your "soes" to your self unless you
knows what of you sows (wow that was a good riff, didn't you think so too?). I
ask you again: Why would a news correspondent begin a report: "So. Mr Trump
lumps all non-whites and non-males into the dangerous servant class. And plans
to deport them all to Alaska. So. Mr. Trump stubbed his toe." So. No one is
apparently as up in arms over this libertine use of so, at least not so much as
I am. I'm not calling for the Grammar Police, not yet, I think that if we all
would just complain so long and so loud and so-so violently, then the practice
will come to an end. So be it. So there. As they say. Yes, but why? Well
because. As it is with those who would be believed to be expert languagers, I
say: So be it.
Moi aussi.
